We have reviewed and Verisign believes that no change to its IPR disclosure is required at this time.
Russ ________________________________________ From: Jiankang YAO [ya...@cnnic.cn] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 10:55 PM To: dnsop@ietf.org; Patent Licensing; SM Cc: matth...@nlnetlabs.nl; White, Russell; rbon...@juniper.net; dnsop@ietf.org; p...@isoc.de; miek.gie...@sidn.nl; bcla...@cisco.com; sa.morr...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IPR Disclosure: VeriSign, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13 and draft-koch-dnsop-dnssec-operator-change-04 ----- Original Message ----- From: "SM" <s...@resistor.net> To: <dnsop@ietf.org>; <patentlicens...@verisign.com> Cc: <matth...@nlnetlabs.nl>; <riwh...@verisign.com>; <rbon...@juniper.net>; <dnsop@ietf.org>; <p...@isoc.de>; <miek.gie...@sidn.nl>; <bcla...@cisco.com>; <sa.morr...@googlemail.com> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IPR Disclosure: VeriSign, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13 and draft-koch-dnsop-dnssec-operator-change-04 > The IPR disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1924/ does not > mention RFC 4641. As draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13 is based on RFC > 4641, does the submitter believe that an IPR disclosure is required > for RFC 4641? > I am interested in this question too since rfc4641bis and rfc4641 share a lot of points. Jiankang Yao > Regards, > -sm > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
